Metaphysical Cage Match!

In this corner, Mark A.R. Kleiman, assisted by an anonymous professional philosopher!

Mark A. R. Kleiman: Wittgenstein on religous belief: A reader who is a professional philosopher writes:

...Wittgenstein held a view of religious belief quite similar to your own. From Culture and Value.... "Christianity is not based on a historical truth; rather, it offers us a (historical) narrative and says: 'now believe!' But not, 'believe this narrative with the belief that is appropriate to a historical narrative', rather: 'believe, through thick and thin, which you can do only as the result of a life'. Here you have a message!--don't treat it as you would another historical message! Make a quite different place for it in your life.--There is nothing paradoxical about that!

"[...]

"Queer as it sounds: the historical accounts of the Gospels might, in the historical sense, be demonstrably false, and yet belief would lose nothing through this: not, however, because it has to do with 'universal truths of reason'! Rather, because historical proof (the historical proof-game) is irrelevant to belief..."

In that corner, St. Paul, who thinks that the truth of the historical narrative has everything to do with belief!

Douay-Rheims Bible Online, First Epistle Of Saint Paul To The Corinthians: He rose again the third day... was seen by Cephas... after that by the eleven... by more than five hundred brethren at once: of whom many remain until this present.... After that... James, then by all the apostles. And last of all... by me....

[I]f Christ be not risen again, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God: because we have given testimony against God, that he hath raised up Christ; whom he hath not raised up.... [I]f Christ be not risen again... you are yet in your sins... they also that are fallen asleep in Christ, are perished. If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable...

To those who say that his teachings are historically false but metaphysically true, St. Paul gives this answer: "[I]f Christ be not risen again, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God..."

Comments

[Gen'l Glut]

Good for you, Brad. Liberal "Christianity" -- the kind that removes miracles, history, doctrine, and finally Christ -- has been proven a disaster. The people who tend to praise liberal "Christianity" are athiests and agnostics who wouldn't darken the door of a UCC or ECUSA congregation anyway, no matter how much these kinds of denominations give up (alert: double entendre)!

[dsquared]

Oh Brad Brad Brad. Clearly this is only true if you assume that by "Christ risen up", St Paul means "Christ literally and physically risen up, with this to be understood in an entirely historical-literal sense". Which of course is exactly what Wittgenstein was saying is the wrong interpretation. To be honest, I don't see you getting through Tripos at this rate.

[Gene O'Grady]

Not to be picky, but the assertions Paul makes (usually about the passion and resurrection and aftermath) are not what is usually thought of as the historically verifiable parts of the gospels -- the infancy narratives, sermon on the mount/in the plain, miracles and details of the trial before Pilate are not in Paul's epistles. It's almost as if Paul limited himself to the historically non-verifiable.

Those who want to evict a strawman liberal Christianity, rather in the way others seem to want to claim every position they disagree with as "secularism," might want to check out the Archbishop of Canterbury's website. I'm not aware of anything in our vital American Christianity that George Will is so fond of puffing that matches it in intelligence or moral cogency.

[Dale]

Somehow, modern religious liberals have been able- to a certain extent- to violate W's notions. We have self-consciously entered into a state of post critical reaffirmation of much of our religious tradition. It is possible, in a sense, to stand outside our religious langauge game and see others within their particular language game and learn from that perception of self and others.

[Joe O]

And, here is MLK who hints that the truth of the historical narrative has little to do with belief.

http://www.stanford.edu/group/King/publications/papers/vol1/500215-The_Influence_of_the_Mystery_Religions_on_Christianity.htm

Sometimes Liberal "Christianity" can kick some ass.

[ogged]

What dsquared said. How we're supposed to take "risen" is precisely what's at issue.

[John Emerson]

I recently spent some time going through Wittgenstein's religious-seeming notes and comments (not really developed writings).

One thing that surprised me was the intensity of his committment to moral-existential judgments (including intensely negative judgements of himself and others) which were unconnected to any rational, utilitarian, theological, or common-sensical ground. Wittgenstein could be a very harsh guy.

In general his existentialist moralism (which is what I think it is) seemed to be a pretty ordinary kind of Lutheran-Kantian moralism, given a nationalist-militarist twist in the XIXc, and a straight-edge twist in the early XXc. All things tending toward strictness and rigorism.

His thoughts about religion generally reminded me a lot of various sorts of "two truths" science-religion dichotomies I was exposed to as a young church-going skeptic. CS Lewis and GK Chesterton are the names I remember. Wittgenstein resemled Pascal even more, but in what I saw he didn't seem to add much.

3000 more words at my URL.

[Matt Butler]

Paul was the first to introduce into Christianity the kind of dogmatic literalism that Jesus himself had spoken so stridently against. It is a project carried proudly forward by Christian fundamentalists to this day.

[Anderson]

Dsquared, would you explain this one to us?

"Oh Brad Brad Brad. Clearly this is only true if you assume that by 'Christ risen up,' St Paul means 'Christ literally and physically risen up, with this to be understood in an entirely historical-literal sense.' Which of course is exactly what Wittgenstein was saying is the wrong interpretation."

What other sense than "historical-literal" could Paul mean here, with his references to witnesses who are still alive & could presumably be called to testify? You & Wittgenstein are too subtle for me.

And Gene, is it Paul's fault if the testimony of living witnesses is now not "thought of as the historically verifiable part of the gospel"? He's not responsible for our sources, or for the fact that he's being read centuries after the bodies of those he cites as witnesses have crumbled into dust. I would think "people who say they really saw Jesus risen" is as good as verification was likely to get.

[piotr]

Anderson,

Gospels are very much at variance with historical record when they refer to facts that are a matter of record. This is one reason why it is very hard to pin-point a particular year for his birth -- with consensus being 2 to 4 years BC. (I would love to use Jewish Calendar in the context of archaeology, to discuss cultures from "9th century BBW" (before the beginning of the world.)

Having that in mind, Wittgenstein proposes Plan B.

[Gene O'Grady]

Anderson and I seem to be speaking at cross purposes. I was referring to the historical criticism that looks at (for example) Luke 1-2 and finds reasons why it can't be "historically accurate." Not always reasons, by the way, that I find terribly compelling, but it's hard to make a case for the mishmash of Roman officials at the beginning of the gospel. That sort of responsible historical critic (which is what I believe Wittgenstein is talking about, although I could be mistaken) rarely tries to offer a critique of the resurrection, on the grounds that it really is a matter of belief, whether belief in personal revelation to Paul or myself or whomever, or belief of the witnesses who testified to what they saw.

[derrida derider]

Bloody hell, Brad, why use that ugly Douay-Rheims version? Being a double translation it is even more inaccurate than the King James, without the magnificent phrasing of the latter. If you want it accurate use a modern translation. If you want it stirring use the King James.

And is dsquared claiming Paul belongs in a second-rate university's Faculty of Cultural Studies, where words mean only what's convenient to the reader at the time? I have no time for religion, but my sympathies are with the fundies on this particular issue - better empiric absurdity than equivocation.

[glory]

"We have come from God, and inevitably the myths woven by us, though they contain error, will also reflect a splintered fragment of the true light, the eternal truth that is with God. Indeed only by myth-making, only by becoming a 'sub-creator' and inventing stories, can Man aspire to the state of perfection that he knew before the Fall. Our myths may be misguided, but they steer however shakily towards the true harbor, while materialistic 'progress' leads only to a yawning abyss and the Iron Crown of the power of evil."

--j.r.r. tolkien
http://dir.salon.com/books/feature/2001/06/04/tolkien/index.html?pn=5

"The heart of Christianity is a myth which is also a fact. The old myth of the Dying God, without ceasing to be myth, comes down from the heaven of legend and imagination to the earth of history. It happens—at a particular date, in a particular place, followed by definable historical consequences. We pass from a Balder or an Osiris, dying nobody knows when or where, to a historical Person crucified (it is all in order) under Pontius Pilate. By becoming fact it does not cease to be myth: that is the miracle…. God is more than god, not less: Christ is more than Balder, not less. We must not be ashamed of the mythical radiance resting on our theology. We must not be nervous about 'parallels' and 'pagan Christs': they ought to be there—it would be a stumbling block if they weren't. We must not, in false spirituality, withhold our imaginative welcome. If God chooses to be mythopoeic—and is not the sky itself a myth—shall we refuse to be mythopathic?"

--c.s. lewis
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2001/006/1.32.html

[SZ]

Hi Brad:

I think you've misunderstood what Wittgenstein meant:

(1) He's saying that what makes a person a Christian is their beliefs - in the gospels, the resurrection, etc. - Just as what makes a person and Muslim is their belief in the Koran, and that the Arch Angel Gabriel revealed them to Mohammed. And also, their actions – they behave in accordance to religious doctrine (praying five times a day, or whatever) and do the communal part of their religion (going to church or synagogue).

(2) However, these things are believed irrespective of their historical accuracy. One can be a Christian and believe that dinosaurs roamed the earth. There are still Catholics, even if you prove that the wine served at communion doesn't actually turn into blood.

(3) The reason is because the historical/physical/rational investigation uses an empirical approach to the world - you look to see what can be observed and explained. What counts as "proof" for a historian is defined by the things that historians do. If you find Anasazi ruins in southern Utah, you assume that the Anasazi used to live there. And, of course, their actions – a historian interested in studying Anasazi culture may collect their artifacts, and travel to Cedar Mesa, but they don’t open the bible and look for references to the Anasazi.

(4) Let’s take this conversation away from religion, and give another example of what Wittgenstein means – what counts as “proof” in geometry is very different from what counts as “proof” in economics. You can’t say that geometric proof is “better” or “more pure” than economics. Geometric proof will not help you track labor statistics, or find PPP. Just like economic proof will not help you solve geometric problems. You either accept the definition of proof most appropriate for the activity you’re doing, or you aren’t going to get very far.

(5) You can look to reconcile your religious beliefs with the observable world, but you don’t make the observable world the arbiter of your beliefs. And those that say that religious beliefs MUST conform exactly to the observable world have a very atypical view of religion. The bible says that pi equals 3 – but that doesn’t mean that the whole world gave up Christianity once they learned some geometry.

(6) This isn’t even (or rather, I don’t think it should be) a political issue. Even the most conservative and fundamentalist religious persons in the US today would be unrecognizable as Christians to the early Christians. They don’t sell their daughters into slavery, they don’t give everything they own to the poor, they don’t stone to death people who say “Jehovah”, they eat pork, they use pi in geometry, etc. – The actions of a Christian have changed dramatically over the centuries. Lots of things that were meant to be taken literally have, in the modern world, been taken into the realm of metaphor. Does that mean they’re not Christians? Of course they’re Christians – but if you use a historian’s or a scientist’s definition of what to believe, you’ll not get very far being a Christian. Just as if you were to use geometric proof to judge the truth or falsehood of economics, you wouldn’t get very far.

SZ, who today has been reminded that Wittgenstein was one smart cookie. He also thinks this is a perfect example of a "category mistake".

[JR]

I am not a Christian. Do those of you who are Christians believe that I have an immortal soul that will suffer eternal torment after my death? If you don't, what does it mean to say that Christians are saved?

[Anderson]

Thanks, Gene. I take your point about the gospels' historical inaccuracies, though I've never understood those to be of any particular moment---even well-sourced guys like Tacitus blow their details now and then, and whoever the gospels were written by, they evidently weren't conversant with things like the details of Roman officialdom.

SZ, I'm just not on board with this "regardless of their historical accuracy" notion. I think a Christian can believe that the creation story is only a parable, but I don't quite see how you can be a Christian (as opposed to a philosopher who finds tenets of Christianity congenial) without believing in the Resurrection. As Brad shows, Paul certainly had trouble with that idea. Possibly one could take the Resurrection as a parable too, though "parable of what?" is my next question.

JR, off topic, but bad Christians like myself are looking to be saved principally from themselves. As for hell, I've never seen how a Christian can take any other position than to hope & pray that God won't send anyone there, and that he has some dispensation for nonbelievers that befits an infinitely good and merciful deity. Of course, that wouldn't play too well on the 700 Club.

[derrida derider]

sz has done the service of pointing out that the vulgar postmodernist's contempt for the concept of "truth" has highly respectable antecedents in theology. I reckon if faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things unseen then so much the worse for faith. I prefer the substance to the hope - we should tailor our hopes to our understanding, not our understanding to our hopes. And of course unseen evidence is not evidence at all.

The line that "science deals with one type of truth, religion another, and you can't use one to criticise the other" is, IMHO, a dishonest cop-out.

[JR]

"bad Christians like myself are looking to be saved principally from themselves"

This just doesn't do it. Christians are baptized in order to wash away original sin. I am not baptized - no, let's make this more emotionally loaded. My father was not baptized. Therefore, he was not saved. Therefore, according to Christian faith, he is even as I write this suffering the eternal torments of hell.

If you do not believe this -- if you do not believe in original sin and the cleansing effect of baptism -- I fail to see how you can be a Christian. And if you do believe this, surely you must understand what an insult it is for you to claim that the mothers and fathers of people like me are condemned to eternal suffering.

[Anderson]

JR, pardon me, but if you're declaring that (1) you're not a Christian, then you shouldn't be (2) explaining to Christians whether they can be Christians or not.

Here's a little secret that it took me embarrassingly long to learn: You don't have to be a fundamentalist to be a Christian. Nor a Calvinist. Nor just plain stupid, even.

There are plenty of examples of fundamentalist, Calvinist, &/or stupid "Christians" inflicted on us regularly, so it's an understandable mistake.

[steven davies]

Those that say that religious beliefs MUST conform exactly to the observable world have a very atypical view of religion.I think that these people suffer from atypical depression.